On Mar 27, 2013, at 12:50 AM, Matt Maier wrote:
> Then we disagree about another point of "openness." Unlike software, certain electronics, or 3D printable parts, the LifeTrac was not completely designed in a computer. It wasn't even completely planned out. The design evolved after metal touched metal and those instructions merely document a stable phase. They were already out of date when they were finalized, but they do describe a complete version of the machine. As far a I'm concerned, that qualifies a "open" because that's all anyone needs. Unlike the places where open source is most popular, structures and mechanisms do not always depend on digital files. Blueprints and sketches and cardboard prototypes aren't any good to anyone else. What everyone else needs is an after-the-fact description of how the project actually works, not a before-the-fact description of how it might work. Even if the "original" files exist in any meaningful way they are only useful to satisfy historical curiosity.
Having spent a lot of years building sets from blueprints and sketches before learning CAD and programming, I have to disagree. A well-drawn blueprint most commonly *is* an after-the-fact description of what actually works. And anything that can be drawn or described on paper can be scanned and put in a repo. In the absence of a CAD file, I'll take high-resolution scan of a hand-drawn sketch or blueprint any day.
t.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130327/d6978001/attachment.html>